Is it silly to be proud of that which you don't choose?

[Hababi]

Ethnicity, nationality, etc.

well?

[thedeadwalk!]

Yes. It just causes frivolous problems.

[Give me Beer]

Yes, it's natural but it really is pretty damn silly.

[chronopops]

No, not really.

I could see why you'd say that being a white American though. In your position, you don't necessarily need or want to have an ethnicity or race, you're just human.

[MegaPhony]

I don't think it's silly to be proud.
It's silly and embarassing to be obnoxious and shove it into other people's faces and try to make yourself better than other people, but I think the fact that it's not something you choose kind of makes it like an unconditional pride, like family history or whatnot.
Is it silly to have respect and unconditional love for parents and siblings since they aren't chosen either? No, it's just inherent human nature for the most part.
Is it silly to be proud of being Asian, African, European and the like? Not at all.

[Give me Beer]

I'm not an American and I know plenty of non-white, non first world people that agree with me.

Nationalities are something to be proud of? Don't be ridicilous, and race isn't either seeing as genetically differences between races are actually a lot of the times smaller than some differences you'll find inside races.

A "race" is an artificial construct in the first place.

I wonder, what does my girlfriend have to be proud of then?

Her Chinese ethnicity?
Her Black ethnicity?
Her Indian ethnicity?
Her European ethnicity?

Her Mestizo? Mulato? Her nationality maybe? Ah, but that is also a whim of history, she might very well have been Colombian if it hadn't been for the USA.

Everybody is just human, and nobody 'needs' an ethnicity. I have more in common with my Brazilian buddy, than I do with my white, ethnic country men.

****, I'll get confused within my own country.

Do I have a right to be proud of the achievements of my frenchspeaking countrymen?
Maybe of William of Orange? I mean, he was the duke of the Dutchy I live in, even though he lost it to Alva and Farnese ... and some Dutch people I know are very proud of him, he's the Father of the Fatherland ... then again he was a German prince.

Then again, my King is decended from Germans ... should I be proud of his achievements? Should I be proud of the King in the first place? Loyal maybe?

What about my hometown?

Then again, if I move? What if I lived there until I was 3 and then moved?

This is really confusing me ...

I might have Spanish blood as well, can I be proud of Spain then?

[Smokey D]

Rationally, it makes no sense, but it has a visceral appeal that can be harmless (sports) or deadly (genocide) depending on how it manifests.

[Give me Beer]

Yeah, it's natural for you to feel it, but that doesn't make it less silly. It's really no problem in say, sports (unless you go Hooligan of course) ... but if you really think about it, it's sort of a dumb concept. You're proud of achievements that aren't your own.

Would you say you were proud of your blond hair?

EDIT:

I'm wondering, Albert Einstein. Do you still get to say you're proud of him if you're German? Or is it more like a Jewish thing? Do you get extra points if you're Jewish and German?

...

Do Americans get any pride for Einstein's achievements?

[chronopops]

I'm not an American and I know plenty of non-white, non first world people that agree with me.

Nationalities are something to be proud of? Don't be ridicilous, and race isn't either seeing as genetically differences between races are actually a lot of the times smaller than some differences you'll find inside races.

A "race" is an artificial construct in the first place.

I wonder, what does my girlfriend have to be proud of then?

Her Chinese ethnicity?
Her Black ethnicity?
Her Indian ethnicity?
Her European ethnicity?

Her Mestizo? Mulato? Her nationality maybe? Ah, but that is also a whim of history, she might very well have been Colombian if it hadn't been for the USA.

Everybody is just human, and nobody 'needs' an ethnicity. I have more in common with my Brazilian buddy, than I do with my white, ethnic country men.

****, I'll get confused within my own country.

Do I have a right to be proud of the achievements of my frenchspeaking countrymen?
Maybe of William of Orange? I mean, he was the duke of the Dutchy I live in, even though he lost it to Alva and Farnese ... and some Dutch people I know are very proud of him, he's the Father of the Fatherland ... then again he was a German prince.

Then again, my King is decended from Germans ... should I be proud of his achievements? Should I be proud of the King in the first place? Loyal maybe?

What about my hometown?

Then again, if I move? What if I lived there until I was 3 and then moved?

This is really confusing me ...

I might have Spanish blood as well, can I be proud of Spain then?
lol.

ok sorry.

[guitrguy]

When it separates us as a a common species, yes.

[musicanity]

I don't think it's silly to be proud.
It's silly and embarassing to be obnoxious and shove it into other people's faces and try to make yourself better than other people, but I think the fact that it's not something you choose kind of makes it like an unconditional pride, like family history or whatnot.
Is it silly to have respect and unconditional love for parents and siblings since they aren't chosen either? No, it's just inherent human nature for the most part.
Is it silly to be proud of being Asian, African, European and the like? Not at all.

+1, Well said.

[Smokey D]

Having an inherent love for Europeans is ridiculous and cannot be compared to having something similar for parents or siblings, since you know them and you can never know hte majority of Europeans (or Asians or Africans or whatever).

You can be happy something happened, but being proud doesn't makes sense.

[Iscariot]

I don't think it's silly to an extent. I'm proud of my heritage and my family history here in America and while I may not have chosen my place of birth, my family did with good intentions so I think it's ok to be proud of that.

[Smokey D]

Why are you proud? You didn't do anything.

[Iscariot]

So it's inappropriate to be proud of the accomplishments of your family? Why?

[Smokey D]

Because you didn't do anything to achieve them.

You can be happy your family (or someone else) achieved them, but taking pride in it as though you are in some way responsible is stupid.

[Iscariot]

Because you didn't do anything to achieve them.

You can be happy your family (or someone else) achieved them, but taking pride in it as though you are in some way responsible is stupid.

It's not stupid. It's my family. I can be proud of my family. Pride is not restricted to the first person.

[Iscariot]

Also, what is the difference between being happy for your family's accomplishments and being proud of them? There is none.

[Smokey D]

Pride should be restricted to responsibility.

Also, what is the difference between being happy for your family's accomplishments and being proud of them? There is none.

Yes there is. Happiness is being happy. Pride is taking pleasure for being responsible for something.

[Hababi]

Also, what is the difference between being happy for your family's accomplishments and being proud of them? There is none.

functionally they are virtually interchangeable, semantically:

Father: Son, I'm so proud of you!

Father: Son, I'm so happy for you!

Is there really that big of a difference?

[Smokey D]

No, functionally they are different. Idiomatically they are used interchangeably.

[Hababi]

No, functionally they are different. Idiomatically they are used interchangeably.


Pride is taking pleasure for being responsible for something.


:confused:

So, when someone says, "I'm proud to be an American" they're saying "I'm proud to be responsible for defeating Nazi Germany"?? Your definitions don't make much sense, and if they are interchangeable idiomatically, then that defeats your differentiation.

[Smokey D]

But they aren't responsible for defeating Nazi Germany, so that claim doesn't make any sense.

Pride is different from happiness. Happiness can be associated with pride but pride = happiness is wrong.

[Hababi]

But they aren't responsible for defeating Nazi Germany, so that claim doesn't make any sense.

Exactly, so I don't see the point of saying "you have pride wrong!" The issue isn't whether people understand the most accurate definition of pride, it's whether what they embrace as pride has validity or not.

Pride is different from happiness. Happiness can be associated with pride but pride = happiness is wrong.

Both can be associated with each other and both can exist separately.

[Reaganista]

guys community pride exists and it's ok

[Smokey D]

Exactly, so I don't see the point of saying "you have pride wrong!" The issue isn't whether people understand the most accurate definition of pride, it's whether what they embrace as pride has validity or not.

Yeah, and people who take pride in defeating Germany when they weren't actually responsible are doing something that's stupid.


Both can be associated with each other and both can exist separately.

Yes, but that doesn't change what I'm saying.

When a person says 'I'm proud of you', idiomatically they are saying 'I take pleasure from your achievement'. In a stricter sense, pride has the implication of personal exaltation from an achievement and to be personally proud of something you did not do is stupid.

guys community pride exists and it's ok

Sure, when you're part of that community.

[irishslappop]

well i'd say its a good thing to be proud of yourself and who you are. but if you take ittoo far, it causes problems.

[i am the robots]

its completely normal to be proud of your heritage and to know, "hey this is where i came from."

being proud doesn't necessarily mean you think you're better.

[1338 h4x0r]

I have great pride in humankind's absolute subjugation of the pathetic animal kingdom.

[Smokey D]

its completely normal to be proud of your heritage and to know, "hey this is where i came from."

Sure it's normal, but there's few things more arbitrary or irrational than national identification.

[cobert]

No its not silly.

Pride is taking pleasure for being responsible for something.

I can feel pride in my little cousins baseball team winning a game. I would gladly tell the person next to me in the stands that my cousin is playing on the winning team. Yet, I have nothing to do with the win. Pleasure from responsibility doesnt equal pride in this case.

Taking pride in something, to me, just means it may be worth boasting about. Its not silly for somebody to consider their nation the best on earth and feel good about it.

[Bordello]

Sure it's normal, but there's few things more arbitrary or irrational than national identification.

surely this thread is one of them

[Smokey D]

I can feel pride in my little cousins baseball team winning a game. I would gladly tell the person next to me in the stands that my cousin is playing on the winning team. Yet, I have nothing to do with the win. Pleasure from responsibility doesnt equal pride in this case.

That's pretty stupid too, to be honest. I mean it's cool to be happy for your cousins, but you haven't done anything that warrants taking pride in their win. Pride is about feelings of self-worth and deriving self-worth from the achievements of others is irrational, despite what visceral appeal it has. That's not too say I (and I bet most people) wouldn't 'take pride' when a team my family was associated with did well in competition. It just doesn't make much sense.

Taking pride in something, to me, just means it may be worth boasting about. Its not silly for somebody to consider their nation the best on earth and feel good about it.

Nope, you can think you're nation is the best on earth without taking pride in it (it's not likely it's the best on earth because of you).

[1338 h4x0r]

Nope, you can think you're nation is the best on earth without taking pride in it (it's not likely it's the best on earth because of you).

Well, that and there's really no way to say 'best' objectively.

[cobert]

That's pretty stupid too, to be honest. I mean it's cool to be happy for your cousins, but you haven't done anything that warrants taking pride in their win. Pride is about feelings of self-worth and deriving self-worth from the achievements of others is
irrational, despite what visceral appeal it has. That's not too say I (and I bet most people) wouldn't 'take pride' when a team my family was associated with did well in competition. It just doesn't make much sense.

Well then lets take ethnicity as an example. People will show a preference towards things familiar to them. Saying theyre proud of their heritage is saying they are comfortable with their status as a (insert ethnicity here) person. Theyre not necessarily saying theyre happy to not be a (insert other ethnicity here) person, but if you were to give them the option of changing their ethnicity they would more than likely not since they are familiar with their current ethnicity and, in some way, have grown attached and think it is equal or better than being (insert other ethnicity here). They find self-worth in something they were born into. Sure, when national pride is too strong things can get out of control, but if not then so what? Its not silly to root for your home country.

Nope, you can think you're nation is the best on earth without taking pride in it (it's not likely it's the best on earth because of you).

I know, but the fact that you dont have to be proud doesnt mean it is silly to be proud.

Well, that and there's really no way to say 'best' objectively.

No ****. If we say things that are subjective are silly then what the **** are we doing on an online forum debating things like this.

[Smokey D]

Well then lets take ethnicity as an example. People will show a preference towards things familiar to them. Saying theyre proud of their heritage is saying they are comfortable with their status as a (insert ethnicity here) person. Theyre not necessarily saying theyre happy to not be a (insert other ethnicity here) person, but if you were to give them the option of changing their ethnicity they would more than likely not since they are familiar with their current ethnicity and, in some way, have grown attached and think it is equal or better than being (insert other ethnicity here). They find self-worth in something they were born into. Sure, when national pride is too strong things can get out of control, but if not then so what? Its not silly to root for your home country.

But finding self-worth in being black or white or Irish or Mexican is finding self-worth in something that's completely arbitrary and out of your control. A person born in a French village 2 miles from the German border probably has more in common both ethnically and culturally with their German neighbours than someone born next to the French Spanish border. A person born in St Petersburg has more in common with people in the Baltic than people born in Vladivostok. The larger the 'imagined community' to which one belongs, the more arbitrary and irrational that perception of belonging becomes.

I know, but the fact that you dont have to be proud doesnt mean it is silly to be proud.


I think you have to be using a very loose definition of pride for that to work.

[monkeysonmars.]

pride in terms of association yes. pride in terms of self-respect, or in turn respect for your country - of course not.

[lfantwister]

You should only be actively proud of an immediate community that you were born into if they are an oppressed minority whose culture is not widely recognized as legitimate

[1338 h4x0r]

No ****. If we say things that are subjective are silly then what the **** are we doing on an online forum debating things like this.

I should probably be writing a proof for homework now tbh.

[Aklerc]

No, I don't think it's silly but I think "pride" is the wrong word because of somewhat negative connotations it holds.

I think it's instinctive... but sometimes it can be dangerous and sometimes it can be helpful. Hmm... everything in moderation I guess.

[i am the robots]

cut out the "in moderation"

[Aklerc]

It wasn't intended to be serious.

[Iskandar]

It's quite stupid to be proud of a community when you contributed nothing to their achievements. I would never say I'm proud of the Polish people, because I've never even been to Poland.

It's a little different when it's a closely knit community and you actively partake in its cultural life.

[i am the robots]

It wasn't intended to be serious.

nor was my post lol

[cobert]

I guess we should all agree to disagree, because one side will keep saying 'you didnt have any choice' and the other side will keep saying 'so what?' because we have different definitions of pride.

[spitfirejunky]

Being a member of an ethnicity or nationality can require levels of participation similar to those of communities, no?

In turn, it wouldn't be stupid at all to say "I'm proud to be American," if you're a law-abiding citizen who pays taxes and does all that other stuff that merits pride.

[Det_Nosnip]

No. One can choose to embrace his/her heritage and be proud of it. I don't see anything silly about that...

[Danger Bird]

I will say "somewhat"

[Reaganista]

Sure, when you're part of that community.
ya well i am so good to know you agree

[i am the robots]

I guess we should all agree to disagree, because one side will keep saying 'you didnt have any choice' and the other side will keep saying 'so what?' because we have different definitions of pride.

omg everybody look at this sissy

[Amit]

Ethnicity, nationality, etc.

well?

woops i read the question wrong

[i am the robots]

wutever nobody cares ur brown

[Surtr]

Ethnicity? I don't go either way on that one. I guess it does make a minor difference, but I could care less what I was really.

Nationality? I'd say that ones a no for me. I'm Canadian and I'm definitely not one of those people who's like "CANADA! WE ARE SO MUCH BETTER THAN AMERICA!!" and all the things A LOT of people in Canada say. Like even in classrooms I've watched teachers take a piss on Americans and say "Well at least we're not gun-weilding crazy Americans!"

I prefer England over Canada, and I'd say I'm more proud of England than I am Canada, despite the fact I wasn't born here.

So to answer the question, hell no you shouldn't be proud of something you didn't choose. But you can grow to appreciate it, but you also shouldn't be narrow minded about it and just be like "CANADA!".

[totah]

I'm not an American and I know plenty of non-white, non first world people that agree with me.

Nationalities are something to be proud of? Don't be ridicilous, and race isn't either seeing as genetically differences between races are actually a lot of the times smaller than some differences you'll find inside races.

A "race" is an artificial construct in the first place.

I wonder, what does my girlfriend have to be proud of then?

Her Chinese ethnicity?
Her Black ethnicity?
Her Indian ethnicity?
Her European ethnicity?

Her Mestizo? Mulato? Her nationality maybe? Ah, but that is also a whim of history, she might very well have been Colombian if it hadn't been for the USA.

Everybody is just human, and nobody 'needs' an ethnicity. I have more in common with my Brazilian buddy, than I do with my white, ethnic country men.

****, I'll get confused within my own country.

Do I have a right to be proud of the achievements of my frenchspeaking countrymen?
Maybe of William of Orange? I mean, he was the duke of the Dutchy I live in, even though he lost it to Alva and Farnese ... and some Dutch people I know are very proud of him, he's the Father of the Fatherland ... then again he was a German prince.

Then again, my King is decended from Germans ... should I be proud of his achievements? Should I be proud of the King in the first place? Loyal maybe?

What about my hometown?

Then again, if I move? What if I lived there until I was 3 and then moved?

This is really confusing me ...

I might have Spanish blood as well, can I be proud of Spain then?


Best. Post. Ever. As far as discussing race and nationalism in this forums anyway. In my experience.

Race IS a construct. Before European colonialism you'd rarely find an idea of racial division and racist bigotry in any society (though certain colonialist powers not in Europe did use it as well, briefly). Even in trade-rich and diverse societies such as Middle-Eastern and North African ones. It's all whitey's fault.

EDIT: I think it was started in Europe by the Romans, actually. Europeans were also the first anti-semites. Now it's mean to hit us directly, you send us away to the desert to get savaged by the people we descended from, whom YOU robbed. I'm a bitter bastard.

[Smokey D]

While it's true that race in the pseudo-scientific, quasi Darwinist sense is a peculiarly European construct, most civilizations attempt to distinguish themselves in some ways from their neighbours and rivals. Hence, you get the Greeks, Romans Chinese and Japanese calling everyone else barbarians. Even in the Middle East, where Islam was supposed to transcend ethnic divisions, early Arabs were reluctant to preach to non-Arabs, even in Iran. Most ancient civilizations thought of themselves as uniquely chosen and superior, so you get things like the Jewish belief that they were God's chosen people, etc. Even in India, the caste system is thought by some to originate at least in part in ethnic divisions.

[Amit]

ethnic divisions set by the invaders from the caucaus vs. the native population of south asia

[Smokey D]

Well, yeah. The Vedic peoples.

[Amit]

yeah just adding some more detail

[tablespoonful]

I don't think it's silly to be proud.
It's silly and embarassing to be obnoxious and shove it into other people's faces and try to make yourself better than other people, but I think the fact that it's not something you choose kind of makes it like an unconditional pride, like family history or whatnot.
Is it silly to have respect and unconditional love for parents and siblings since they aren't chosen either? No, it's just inherent human nature for the most part.
Is it silly to be proud of being Asian, African, European and the like? Not at all.

inherent human nature is pretty silly though lol

and that pride isnt that some kind of emotional or survival mechanism to identify with a group of people fostering a sense of belonging, duty, purpose, etc?

[Scuba_Steve]

National Pride is just a way to divert attention from the fact that as individuals, very few of us accomplish anything worthwhile in our lives.


I dont know if this is good or bad.

[dei]

Why are you proud? You didn't do anything.

/thread

[tablespoonful]

/insert the question of identity

[Reaganista]

guys cultural history is an integral part of the identity of any person

[Moon Flavor]

I'm extremely proud of my gayness and my music taste.

I'm extremely unproud of my nationality and my religion.

Some things just aren't worth being proud of and some things are.

[Smokey D]

guys cultural history is an integral part of the identity of any person

There's a difference between awareness of cultural history and heritage and being proud of it.

I'm very proud of my gayness

To me, being proud of being gay makes no more sense than being proud of being straight.

[i am the robots]

people who go all out to show how gay they are make me want to stab

[Futue te Ipsum]

I'm not proud to be English, I'm just glad that I am. I've been pelted with opportunity at every step.

[1338 h4x0r]

I'm proud of my full, yet soft-haired beard that men admire and women crave.

[Aaron]

I don't like people who confuse racism and patriotism. ie "I'm not racist, but americans should get jobs before mexicans".

[totah]

While it's true that race in the pseudo-scientific, quasi Darwinist sense is a peculiarly European construct, most civilizations attempt to distinguish themselves in some ways from their neighbours and rivals. Hence, you get the Greeks, Romans Chinese and Japanese calling everyone else barbarians. Even in the Middle East, where Islam was supposed to transcend ethnic divisions, early Arabs were reluctant to preach to non-Arabs, even in Iran. Most ancient civilizations thought of themselves as uniquely chosen and superior, so you get things like the Jewish belief that they were God's chosen people, etc. Even in India, the caste system is thought by some to originate at least in part in ethnic divisions.

First of all, the spread of Islam has never had problems with race and ethnicity. Islam during the beginning, whatever it is now, is very egalitarian, where the main distinction is believer and non-believer. Hence the Ummah. I don't know where you got that stuff about Arabs holding out on the Persians. Early on in Islam it spread East into Central and South-Eastern Asia where people are not Arabs. Ditto for North Africa (although that was more through trade and migration than simple religious spread).

And the Greeks, Romans, Chinese and Japanese were all imperialist powers (the Greeks the first empire from Europe), which is the point I was making. Race is a construct of colonialism/imperialism to justify and create support for the imperial state. It's a way to pacify populations; "The black people are primitives and we must make them whole human beings," or "We must bring civilisation to them." In Rome you would be accepted as a Roman citizen regardless of your ethnic background, provided you would sell out and live the Roman lifestyle. Black people didn't even get this chance.

"Most ancient civilisations" didn't think of themselves as racially superior, it was only the imperialist ones who perpetuated those kinds of myths. The Jews too. They has their empire around 900bc when King Josiah united Israel and Judea. That was around when the Old Testament and a bunch of Torah scriptures were put down on paper. A sort of political manifesto if you like, stating that the 12 tribes of Israel and Judea were actually all the Chosen Children of God and everyone else who didn't convert was inferior.

[Smokey D]

First of all, the spread of Islam has never had problems with race and ethnicity. Islam during the beginning, whatever it is now, is very egalitarian, where the main distinction is believer and non-believer. Hence the Ummah. I don't know where you got that stuff about Arabs holding out on the Persians. Early on in Islam it spread East into Central and South-Eastern Asia where people are not Arabs. Ditto for North Africa (although that was more through trade and migration than simple religious spread).


Actually that's not what happened, the ummah concept notwithstanding. According to classical Islamic jurisprudence, the only distinction in Islam is, as you say, between believer and infidel. However, under Umayyad caliphate, the first dynastic caliphate following the initial conquests, Arabs were actually hostile to the idea of welcoming non-Arabs into the faith. This may have been a reflection of the fact that non-Muslims were subject to higher taxes, and widespread conversion would have been devastating to state revenues. Even if this is true, the Umayyads continued to favour Arabs over non-Arab converts. It's not until the Umayyads collapsed and the Abbasid caliphate was established at Baghdad (within the traditional Persian sphere of influence) that Islam became the cosmopolitan civilization it is made out to be in the classical age.


And the Greeks, Romans, Chinese and Japanese were all imperialist powers (the Greeks the first empire from Europe), which is the point I was making. Race is a construct of colonialism/imperialism to justify and create support for the imperial state. It's a way to pacify populations; "The black people are primitives and we must make them whole human beings," or "We must bring civilisation to them." In Rome you would be accepted as a Roman citizen regardless of your ethnic background, provided you would sell out and live the Roman lifestyle. Black people didn't even get this chance.

First of all, you said 'Europe created race' not 'imperialist states'. Secondly, please oh please don't try to compare race as a pseudo-scientific construction from the 19th and 20th centuries to the ethnic elitism of the classical world. They're superficially similar, but have different motivations and understandings. And you don't need to explain white man's burden ideology to me.

Also, black people did become citizens in the Roman empire. Not that the empire was a very nice or liberal place.



"Most ancient civilisations" didn't think of themselves as racially superior, it was only the imperialist ones who perpetuated those kinds of myths. The Jews too. They has their empire around 900bc when King Josiah united Israel and Judea. That was around when the Old Testament and a bunch of Torah scriptures were put down on paper. A sort of political manifesto if you like, stating that the 12 tribes of Israel and Judea were actually all the Chosen Children of God and everyone else who didn't convert was inferior.

For ethnogenesis to take place, the ethnicity in question must recognise itself in someway as different from its neighbours. This differentiation usually occurs by asserting superiority over those neighbours.

[totah]

Actually that's not what happened, the ummah concept notwithstanding. According to classical Islamic jurisprudence, the only distinction in Islam is, as you say, between believer and infidel. However, under Umayyad caliphate, the first dynastic caliphate following the initial conquests, Arabs were actually hostile to the idea of welcoming non-Arabs into the faith. This may have been a reflection of the fact that non-Muslims were subject to higher taxes, and widespread conversion would have been devastating to state revenues. Even if this is true, the Umayyads continued to favour Arabs over non-Arab converts. It's not until the Umayyads collapsed and the Abbasid caliphate was established at Baghdad (within the traditional Persian sphere of influence) that Islam became the cosmopolitan civilization it is made out to be in the classical age.

So the Umayyad caliphate was the elite monarchist rulership set up after the initial Muhammadan spread and the subsequent military conquests of the Rashidun Cliphate, it was an imperialist state. My point is that division of race and nationalism were rarely organic products of society, and mostly a political tool and construct of imperalistic powers. So one dynasty, for less than ninety years, divided along the lines of race using economic manuevering (ie. taxes, for the Islamic empire was trade-rich and depended upon trade), as opposed to ideological.

First of all, you said 'Europe created race' not 'imperialist states'. Secondly, please oh please don't try to compare race as a pseudo-scientific construction from the 19th and 20th centuries to the ethnic elitism of the classical world. They're superficially similar, but have different motivations and understandings. And you don't need to explain white man's burden ideology to me.

No, I said that non-European empires have used it as well, but European imperialists have used it the most. We're still using it.

Also, black people did become citizens in the Roman empire. Not that the empire was a very nice or liberal place.

I meant black people in 1st and 2nd world (ie. European and American) countries, referring to slavery. What I said about Roman citizenship applies across the global ethnic spectrum, because they did not divide and conquer on the basis of race (or religion). They used culture intensively to divide instead.

For ethnogenesis to take place, the ethnicity in question must recognise itself in someway as different from its neighbours. This differentiation usually occurs by asserting superiority over those neighbours.

Well the Judean-Israeli union and following conquests were created using a fusion of tribal histories and folk legends rewritten into the Patriarchs of the Old Testament. Historic, archaeological and literary analysis of the places, period, and the Torah writings themselves have shown that it is not a consistent history, but a fiction made up of at least a dozen different stories. It is not your run-of-the-mill ethnogenesis. I guess that's why we're so special, or so half of the world keeps assuring us.

[Reaganista]

There's a difference between awareness of cultural history and heritage and being proud of it.

sure there is
so what

[Moon Flavor]

To me, being proud of being gay makes no more sense than being proud of being straight.

Exactly, that's the beauty of it all.

[McP3000]

Guys

any sort of pride is bad
you shouldn't be proud of your local football team. You didn't choose them to be your local football team.

[Ganondorf]

Pride is alright when it dosen't spill over into something that people care too much about.

[McP3000]

Pride is alright when it dosen't spill over into something that people care too much about.
But people cant do that

i don't trust them. we need to brainwash the pride right out of their barbaric skulls.

[dei]

kill whitey

[Mr. Ron]

"So, why are you proud to be an American???"



"BECAUSE I'M SO FREE!"












........@_@

[dei]

Don't tread on this.

[dei]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6Di8QT98Zk

[McP3000]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6Di8QT98Zk
HAHAHAHAHA

Americans rapping about soccer...now ive seen it all

[VomitStainedCretin]

Feeling that you are part of some greater whole and taking pride in the community's achievements as a member of it is common in all human society and reflects our social nature. It is also psychologically comforting for most people, in comparison to being a solitary individual coping without the beliefs and meanings provided by the community. The problem lies when communities develop a superiority complex and try and impose themselves on other groups, when the beliefs of the general community are used to marginalise those considered to diverge from the ideal and when pride becomes overly inflated without justification.

[Moon Flavor]

If somebody wants to be proud of something, they don't need a reason. Furthermore, you shouldn't care about what other people are proud of if it irks you that much.

There's really no need for this thread.

[Mr. Ron]

If somebody wants to be proud of something, they don't need a reason. Furthermore, you shouldn't care about what other people are proud of if it irks you that much.

There's really no need for this thread.

yes, they do.

[VomitStainedCretin]

If somebody wants to be proud of something, they don't need a reason. Furthermore, you shouldn't care about what other people are proud of if it irks you that much.

There's really no need for this thread.Yes, there's no problem with being proud of the particular community you identify yourself to be part of but this pride, if unrestrained, can lead to conflict with other communities that could be otherwise prevented.

Edit: by 'no reason', I think he means, if you identify yourself as belonging to community x, you do not need a rational premise to take pride in your community if this enhances your sense of belonging (there is no reason to need to belong to a community of course but most people find it satisfies psychological desires as part of their social nature).

[tablespoonful]

If somebody wants to be proud of something, they don't need a reason. Furthermore, you shouldn't care about what other people are proud of if it irks you that much.

There's really no need for this thread.
If somebody wants to care about what other people are proud of, they don't need a reason.
Feeling that you are part of some greater whole and taking pride in the community's achievements as a member of it is common in all human society and reflects our social nature. It is also psychologically comforting for most people, in comparison to being a solitary individual coping without the beliefs and meanings provided by the community. The problem lies when communities develop a superiority complex and try and impose themselves on other groups, when the beliefs of the general community are used to marginalise those considered to diverge from the ideal and when pride becomes overly inflated without justification.
Or maybe the problem lies earlier, when the individual fed his mental energy into a hub and abandoned a chance at more original (and potentially more insightful, meaningful, beneficial) cognizance.

[Smokey D]

So the Umayyad caliphate was the elite monarchist rulership set up after the initial Muhammadan spread and the subsequent military conquests of the Rashidun Cliphate, it was an imperialist state. My point is that division of race and nationalism were rarely organic products of society, and mostly a political tool and construct of imperalistic powers. So one dynasty, for less than ninety years, divided along the lines of race using economic manuevering (ie. taxes, for the Islamic empire was trade-rich and depended upon trade), as opposed to ideological.

First of all, Islam has always been associated with imperialist states. So if in one period it was racist and ethnically motivated while in others it was not, it kinda dispels the notion that all empires are equally racist all the time.

But actually, I'd dispute the notion that Islam was not racist even in the non-Umayyad periods. After the Abbasids, there was a reaction against the cosmopolitan nature of the Baghdad court, which once again asserted the supremacy of Arabs over Persia. At the same time, and more importantly, Islam at this point came under the domination of the Turks, who frequently disparaged and excluded Arabs.

And the internal racism of the empire is nothing compared to what it was like externally.

the Tunisian Ibn Khaldun could write: - :"...the Negro nations are, as a rule, submissive to slavery, because (Negroes) have little that is (essentially) human and possess attributes that are quite similar to those of dumb animals.

the Egyptian Al-Abshibi (1388-1446) wrote, "It is said that when the [black] slave is sated, he fornicates, when he is hungry, he steals."


No, I said that non-European empires have used it as well, but European imperialists have used it the most. We're still using it.

You said the Romans invented it.

But anyway, Europeans invented race. Other civilizations didn't really start thinking in terms of race until the Europeans introduced them to the idea.

I meant black people in 1st and 2nd world (ie. European and American) countries, referring to slavery. What I said about Roman citizenship applies across the global ethnic spectrum, because they did not divide and conquer on the basis of race (or religion). They used culture intensively to divide instead.

I don't understand what you mean. Black people have citizenship now. And black people got citizenship in Europe too. One of the horrific ironies of the slave trade was that there was 'no slavery in France' (or England or wherever), and the mere act of stepping off a ship in those countries made a person free.

Well the Judean-Israeli union and following conquests were created using a fusion of tribal histories and folk legends rewritten into the Patriarchs of the Old Testament. Historic, archaeological and literary analysis of the places, period, and the Torah writings themselves have shown that it is not a consistent history, but a fiction made up of at least a dozen different stories. It is not your run-of-the-mill ethnogenesis. I guess that's why we're so special, or so half of the world keeps assuring us.

Nah, that's pretty standard.

[VomitStainedCretin]

Or maybe the problem lies earlier, when the individual fed his mental energy into a hub and abandoned a chance at more original (and potentially more insightful, meaningful, beneficial) cognizance.Humanity is by nature social - the group came before the individual, though this is no reason why one cannot reject the group as a solitary individual.

[tablespoonful]

Maybe in a transhumanist, post-Darwinist world there will be no groups.

[VomitStainedCretin]

Maybe in a transhumanist, post-Darwinist world there will be no groups.Until then though the situation stands as it is, though we certainly may attempt steps that we believe will take us towards such a society...

[cobert]

omg everybody look at this sissy

STEP OFF SON

[McP3000]

Until then though the situation stands as it is, though we certainly may attempt steps that we believe will take us towards such a society...
you act like that type of utopia is even feasible at our point in social and economical situation.

[Reaganista]

Guys

any sort of pride is bad
you shouldn't be proud of your local football team. You didn't choose them to be your local football team.

bullshit pride is awesome everyone should be proud as often as possible

[McP3000]

bullshit pride is awesome everyone should be proud as often as possible
i was being sarcastic

basic and rudimentary pride is normal...there is nothing wrong with it as long as you dont take it to hostile levels.

[tablespoonful]

bullpoop pride is awesome everyone should be proud as often as possible

stfu reaganista

[Reaganista]

no thanks i dont want to but your input has been noted

[FIGHTCRIMEALLTHETIME]

idk about you guys but when i say im proud to be from tx or the united states im not actually proud of myself its just a way of saying i appreciate the land i come from
its not an accomplishment or anything

[i am the robots]

STEP OFF SON

NIGGA IM QUICK

[thedeadwalk!]

idk about you guys but when i say im proud to be from tx or the united states im not actually proud of myself its just a way of saying i appreciate the land i come from
But don't you think it becomes a bit pointless since your values come from Texas or the US, so you would logically be more likely to appreciate where you're from?

[totah]

First of all, Islam has always been associated with imperialist states. So if in one period it was racist and ethnically motivated while in others it was not, it kinda dispels the notion that all empires are equally racist all the time.

I didn't say all empires are equally racist all the time. I said race is a social construct most commonly created by imperialist/colonialist powers. It is not the only method a state has to divide a population into different classes in order to conquer them.

But actually, I'd dispute the notion that Islam was not racist even in the non-Umayyad periods. After the Abbasids, there was a reaction against the cosmopolitan nature of the Baghdad court, which once again asserted the supremacy of Arabs over Persia. At the same time, and more importantly, Islam at this point came under the domination of the Turks, who frequently disparaged and excluded Arabs.

Ok, I didn't mean to give the impression that Islam is unprejudiced and always has been. But let's say that, at least in the period when Muhammad was alive, it was pretty egalitarian (because that is when the philosophy ruled the religion, and not vice versa. Same story with Jesus, but look at the Church now).

You said the Romans invented it.

I said/meant to say the Romans were the first European imperialist power to use it (being the first European imperialist power at all). They did not seem to adopt it as well as the colonialists of the past 500 years have, though. Like I said, they used cultural assimilation instead.

But anyway, Europeans invented race. Other civilizations didn't really start thinking in terms of race until the Europeans introduced them to the idea.

You just said that the Arabic empire used them. And I think that the Zulu preached their own racial superiority as a justification for expansion.

I don't understand what you mean. Black people have citizenship now. And black people got citizenship in Europe too. One of the horrific ironies of the slave trade was that there was 'no slavery in France' (or England or wherever), and the mere act of stepping off a ship in those countries made a person free.

I meant that, in contrast to the Roman method, black slaves were still considered and treated as racially inferior regardless of how thoroughly they adopted European culture. Even now the survivors of European/American colonialism and slavery who've been part of our immediate society for generations are still considered and treated as inferior by a significant part of the population.

But don't you think it becomes a bit pointless since your values come from Texas or the US, so you would logically be more likely to appreciate where you're from?

Only if you're unreasonable.

[Smokey D]

I didn't say all empires are equally racist all the time. I said race is a social construct most commonly created by imperialist/colonialist powers. It is not the only method a state has to divide a population into different classes in order to conquer them.

I don't know if I'd say race, but all civilizations distinguish themselves from others in some way.


Ok, I didn't mean to give the impression that Islam is unprejudiced and always has been. But let's say that, at least in the period when Muhammad was alive, it was pretty egalitarian (because that is when the philosophy ruled the religion, and not vice versa. Same story with Jesus, but look at the Church now).

As long as you were Muslim, I guess.


I said/meant to say the Romans were the first European imperialist power to use it (being the first European imperialist power at all). They did not seem to adopt it as well as the colonialists of the past 500 years have, though. Like I said, they used cultural assimilation instead.


Yup. Race, in the way we understand it, wasn't really an issue for the Romans.

You just said that the Arabic empire used them. And I think that the Zulu preached their own racial superiority as a justification for expansion.


If you recall, I started this discussion by saying that 'Europeans invented race in the pseudo-scientific, quasi Darwinist way' of the 19th and 20th century, but all or at least most civilizations have distinguished one another in some way.

I'm not disagreeing with you when you say colonial states create constructs to divide themselves from the people they conquer. I was just disagreeing with the implication that Europe was uniquely responsible, but it seems I may have misunderstood anyway.

[totah]

I don't know if I'd say race, but all civilizations distinguish themselves from others in some way.

If you recall, I started this discussion by saying that 'Europeans invented race in the pseudo-scientific, quasi Darwinist way' of the 19th and 20th century, but all or at least most civilizations have distinguished one another in some way.

In the same way that every individual distinguishes herself from others in some way, and every group of people of any size distinguish themselves from other groups of people. The difference with race and how it was used by the white colonialists (and others) is that the racial difference was converted into racism and so became a justification which is still being used today in most of the world.

I'm not disagreeing with you when you say colonial states create constructs to divide themselves from the people they conquer. I was just disagreeing with the implication that Europe was uniquely responsible, but it seems I may have misunderstood anyway.

Yes, we're not really in dispute over the argument itself. But I think that racism at large in the world today can be traced back to white colonialism and the fallacy of white supremacy (that would be an excellent Propagandhi song-title). For example all the stuff in Africa, like Rwanda, the Congo, Darfur, it's pretty much down to exported race prejudice and miscreation of borders and population centres; both are products of European colonialism. Same goes for racism in Israel against Arabs, and obviously against non-whites in every white nation. The world is run by white supremacy.

[Smokey D]

In the same way that every individual distinguishes herself from others in some way, and every group of people of any size distinguish themselves from other groups of people. The difference with race and how it was used by the white colonialists (and others) is that the racial difference was converted into racism and so became a justification which is still being used today in most of the world.


Europe is responsible only for introducing the concept of race as a scientific distinction. Other societies frequently made use of other typologies to justify oppression, conquest or whatever. Islam (and Christianity), for example, used the distinction of believer and infidel. China used the of being part of Chinese culture. There was distinction and even hatred long before European colonial states arrived.

Yes, we're not really in dispute over the argument itself. But I think that racism at large in the world today can be traced back to white colonialism and the fallacy of white supremacy (that would be an excellent Propagandhi song-title). For example all the stuff in Africa, like Rwanda, the Congo, Darfur, it's pretty much down to exported race prejudice and miscreation of borders and population centres; both are products of European colonialism. Same goes for racism in Israel against Arabs, and obviously against non-whites in every white nation. The world is run by white supremacy.

This is simply not true. As I say, Europe created race. But ethnic, tribal or religious tensions existed long before Europeans arrived. Even in places like Rwanda.

[Against Miik!]

It is foolish to be proud of these things because the only people who are proud of these things are fools. People will find comfort in these things who really have nothing else going for them. Like someone may say, hey, I may be poor and uneducated, but at least I am a white American.

Thats not to say that it is always foolish. It just shouldn't be unconditional. Sure American has been o.k. to me. I can say what I want without losing my hand, I guess. But should I be proud of that? Aren't those just natural rights that we should have at birth, the right to basically be left alone? I think so, so there is no reason to be proud of that. All I know is that I can barely afford to go to college, I am basically hated by the rest of the world for no reason, 1 in 8 of my comrades don't have health care...are these things to be proud of?

It is silly to have respect and unconditional love for your parents and family. If your parents wake you up everyday with a punch to the back of the head, I certainly don't think that merits unconditional love. And the same goes for pride in your country.

[thedeadwalk!]

Only if you're unreasonable.
Why's that?

[McP3000]

Its very angering to see that people are getting "pride" confused with prejudice and extreme nationalism.

[pedro durruti]

I voted no, but how can one be proud of their ethnicity? To be proud of something so trivial when not in the midst of prejudice, like black pride in the face of racism, is definitely silly.

[Dr Hooch]

It is foolish to be proud of these things because the only people who are proud of these things are fools. People will find comfort in these things who really have nothing else going for them. Like someone may say, hey, I may be poor and uneducated, but at least I am a white American.


Sort of agree


If the only thing you have to be proud of is the fact that your family happened to live there when your were born or your descendants were from a certain area and therefore look a certain way then it's time to start doing some things for yourself to be proud of

[guitrguy]

Its very angering to see that people are getting "pride" confused with prejudice and extreme nationalism.
national pride is nonsensical and creates division amongst humans.

[Reaganista]

But don't you think it becomes a bit pointless since your values come from Texas or the US, so you would logically be more likely to appreciate where you're from?

yes
how is this any different from being proud of any other aspect of your identity

Sort of agree


If the only thing you have to be proud of is the fact that your family happened to live there when your were born or your descendants were from a certain area and therefore look a certain way then it's time to start doing some things for yourself to be proud of
ya skin color is the only thing a person acquires from their homeland that makes sense

[totah]

Europe is responsible only for introducing the concept of race as a scientific distinction. Other societies frequently made use of other typologies to justify oppression, conquest or whatever. Islam (and Christianity), for example, used the distinction of believer and infidel. China used the of being part of Chinese culture. There was distinction and even hatred long before European colonial states arrived.



This is simply not true. As I say, Europe created race. But ethnic, tribal or religious tensions existed long before Europeans arrived. Even in places like Rwanda.

Oh no doubt. But as far as an analysis of the current situation goes, the world (well, the Western world, which in turn rules the rest of the world, minus a couple of regions we're working on) is run by white supremacists. The wealth and power of the West was built on (and is still being built on) the backs of non-white colonised peoples. The Irish excepted. We are a colonial power and we have dominated others using the concept of racial inferiority and the tactic of racism. And what's true on one side of the = must be true on the other side: If the soldiers and the plantation foremen and the police must be instilled with racist thoughts for this particular kind of division to work, then the politicians and the bosses (and then, gradually, everyone inbetween the top and the bottom of the pyramid) must be too. Just as a system based in capital is run by rich people, a system based on racial supremacy (in our case, white) is run by white people.

[Smokey D]

Oh no doubt. But as far as an analysis of the current situation goes, the world (well, the Western world, which in turn rules the rest of the world, minus a couple of regions we're working on) is run by white supremacists.

No. Not at all.

he wealth and power of the West was built on (and is still being built on) the backs of non-white colonised peoples.

Not really. Africa contributed remarkably little to imperial GDPs, given how much competition there was over it. Same with South America and most of Asia.

We are a colonial power and we have dominated others using the concept of racial inferiority and the tactic of racism.

We were a colonial power, yes. 50 years ago.

If the soldiers and the plantation foremen and the police must be instilled with racist thoughts for this particular kind of division to work, then the politicians and the bosses (and then, gradually, everyone inbetween the top and the bottom of the pyramid) must be too.

Poor logic. And also, plantation foremen? What the hell man? Get some relevant examples.

Just as a system based in capital is run by rich people, a system based on racial supremacy (in our case, white) is run by white people.

But those kind of ideas are sort of exclusionary. A fascination with capital will ultimately have to compete with a system fascinated with race, and as far as we can tell, capital is winning.

Which, by the way, is awesome.

[totah]

Not really. Africa contributed remarkably little to imperial GDPs, given how much competition there was over it. Same with South America and most of Asia.

What about all those slaves? And South & Central America has been under a process of colonisation since the Reagan regime. The face may have changed, but the outcome's the same. Just like Del Monte owns plantations in starving African countries where they have super-cheap labour and yet all the food they grow there is exported to the West to make pineapple juice instead of feeding the dying population, it was the same case in the American plantations of centuries ago, except that now we don't bring the slaves to the plantation, we bring the plantation to the slaves. Who made all the money from the sugar plantations, for example? Why it's monopolistic sugar companies Silver Spoon and Tate&Lyle. We're built on Old Money.

We were a colonial power, yes. 50 years ago.

Still are. It's called neo-colonialism. I'm sure you've heard of FTAA, NAFTA, CAFTA, IMF, World Bank.

Poor logic. And also, plantation foremen? What the hell man? Get some relevant examples.

It was an example from way back, when European colonialism (and the concept of racism as we see it today) was younger.

But those kind of ideas are sort of exclusionary. A fascination with capital will ultimately have to compete with a system fascinated with race, and as far as we can tell, capital is winning.

I don't understand. Why can't a state be run by rich white people, like it is now?

Which, by the way, is awesome.

If you say so.

Are you arguing that racism isn't a ruling factor in global society because colonialism isn't what it used to be?

[Smokey D]

What about all those slaves?

Industrialisation was far more important. Slavery generated huge amounts of wealth for a very limited elite. Industrialisation generated a huge amount of wealth for nearly everyone and an unbelievable amount of wealth for the elite.

And South & Central America has been under a process
of colonisation since the Reagan regime.

America's position in Latin America has probably been eroded more than anything else, to be honest. And that's not colonialism. You can't just change definitions.

Just like Del Monte owns plantations in starving African countries where they have super-cheap labour and yet all the food they grow there is exported to the West to make pineapple juice instead of feeding the dying population, it was the same case in the American plantations of centuries ago, except that now we don't bring the slaves to the plantation, we bring the plantation to the slaves.

Chattel slavery is not wage slavery.

Who made all the money from the sugar plantations, for example? Why it's monopolistic sugar companies Silver Spoon and Tate&Lyle. We're built on Old Money.

Neither old money nor monopolies.

And the fact that money can be made in Africa is a massive difference from any sort of slavery.

Still are. It's called neo-colonialism. I'm sure you've heard of FTAA, NAFTA, CAFTA, IMF, World Bank.


Yeah, but that's not colonialism. I wouldn't even call it neo-colonialism. Free trade was associated with certain types of imperialism, but that is not even close to saying they're the same thing or necessarily related.

I don't understand. Why can't a state be run by rich white people, like it is now?


Because at a certain point it becomes detrimental to the interests of capital to exclude potentially talented black people purely on the grounds that they are black.


If you say so.

Are you arguing that racism isn't a ruling factor in global society because colonialism isn't what it used to be?

No, I'm arguing racism is neither a consequence or cause of so called (neo) colonialism today. But racism is still a factor. I don't know if I'd call it a 'ruling factor'.


It was an example from way back, when European colonialism (and the concept of racism as we see it today) was younger.

Right, you mean when colonialism was relevant.

[totah]

Industrialisation was far more important. Slavery generated huge amounts of wealth for a very limited elite. Industrialisation generated a huge amount of wealth for nearly everyone and an unbelievable amount of wealth for the elite.

America's position in Latin America has probably been eroded more than anything else, to be honest. And that's not colonialism. You can't just change definitions.

But Pepsi still has plants in Honduras? Americans are still eating Argentinian beef? People are still starving and undergoing terrible exploitation all over Latin America because of American companies? Yes, and that's what neo-colonialism means, and its relation to free trade. Instead of the US army coming in to enslave, the big bosses just draft an unfair trade agreement (what they cynically call "free"), bribe some 3rd World politicians, open up some plants and factory farms, kill anyone who tries to organise for better working conditions, and export the cheaply made goods back home.

Chattel slavery is not wage slavery.

No, but it's pretty damn close. In a poor country where there's not much cheap product choice (let alone state-subsidised bread for poor people), what's the difference between paying in food and paying in enough money to buy food to survive for another week?

Neither old money nor monopolies.

How can you possibly say that a company that owned slave-labour sugar plantations in the West Indies two hundred years ago isn't built on old slave money?

And the fact that money can be made in Africa is a massive difference from any sort of slavery.

The fact that money can be made means nothing, it's the way it's made that's the problem.

Because at a certain point it becomes detrimental to the interests of capital to exclude potentially talented black people purely on the grounds that they are black.

You're right: smart, manipulative, business-minded and business-owning black people do get into positions of power. Condoleeza Rice sits on several Executive Boards of large corporations.

No, I'm arguing racism is neither a consequence or cause of so called (neo) colonialism today. But racism is still a factor. I don't know if I'd call it a 'ruling factor'.

No, it's a product of old imperialism, and a perpetuator of current class class divisions.

Right, you mean when colonialism was relevant.

You think history is one stage after another where everything changes every time the background does? It's not, it's all one thing and it's made up of lots and lots of interconnected events that influence each other. The slavery of the Africans two hundred years ago created a powerful and wealthy elite, as you said, who then banked hugely off the backs of everyone else and got even more rich and powerful. Now the people who inherited their money and power run the world (not in the illuminati sense, obviously). The industrial revolution may have created much more opportunity for profit, but who knows what the world would look like now without African slavery, but with industrialisation? There's no point in speculating, all we have is what happened and it's blindingly obvious how connected everything is.

[Smokey D]

But Pepsi still has plants in Honduras? Americans are still eating Argentinian beef? People are still starving and undergoing terrible exploitation all over Latin America because of American companies? Yes, and that's what neo-colonialism means, and its relation to free trade. Instead of the US army coming in to enslave, the big bosses just draft an unfair trade agreement (what they cynically call "free"), bribe some 3rd World politicians, open up some plants and factory farms, kill anyone who tries to organise for better working conditions, and export the cheaply made goods back home.


It's a huge stretch to say 'Americans eating Argentine beef' is a colonial relationship. It's entirely inaccurate to say trade is colonialism, since trade predates colonial systems of any kind.

Through its dominant position in world trade and finance, Britain (and America) enmeshed the economies of the New World and Australasia into a network of mutually dependent states. Although this strategy yielded massive returns, it was acutely hostile to the diversification of the economic base, with profound potential negative implications for long-term sustainable growth. The division of labour between industrial and primary producers ensured that independent capital accumulation for manufacturing purposes in the periphery was unprofitable and unattractive to both British and local investment. Instead, these societies acquired a capital infrastructure designed to maximise the profits of the agrarian or mining sectors, and the few local manufacturing operations that did exist were dominated by foreign owners. Parallel to this development was the rise of powerful, self-governing states that could affect domestic outcomes to a significant extent. Political institutions based on metropolitan designs were adopted, generating profoundly different regimes to those that emerged under colonial rule in the tropics. All of these developments facilitated the growth of settler capitalism, a mode of production that responded directly to the growing gap in agricultural output and mouths to feed in Europe. These countries became rich, it is argued, not in spite of dependency but because of it. Under the auspices of a 'free trade regime compatible with a high degree of political autonomy', the neo-Europes of the southern hemisphere participated in the world economy and gained substantial material rewards in return. Whether class relations provided a suitable environment to take the shift to industrialisation proved decisive in which countries would transform from semi- periphery agrarian societies into highly capitalised market economies that were partners in world trade to the northern metropolises.

...

This yields two important results: 1) dependency on the British metropolis was a major contributor to development in the Dominions and 2) the closer the links between the British and colonial state, the more likely political and economic conditions suitable for sustained dependent development were to emerge. The consequence of these conclusions are that Britishness, defined as formal inclusion with the imperial system, the imposition of Crown authority and the replication of British political institutions and norms, was an important determinant in the success of dependent development. Possible reasons for this association are that the British political institutions are more conducive to economic growth generally than the hacienda system, or that the Dominions benefited from imperial paternalism from which Argentina and other Latin American countries were excluded. However, these are merely speculative and more research must be conducted before any inferences can be drawn with some degree of certainty. What is significant is that this places Denoon's argument in the school of fragment theory settler historiography. It is the reproduction and indeed extension of capitalist productive relations in the Dominions that shape the outcome of development despite dependence. New modes of production weren't established on the frontier, but rather old ones imported and perfected. Although the franchise did begin to expand in Argentina from the 1870s onwards, gerrymandering, presidential intervention and tests on literacy prevented the full impact of democratic self- rule on the Argentine political economy. Crucially, Argentina's middle class remained attached to the same economic base as the old oligarchs. There was therefore no incentive to industrialise, rather just to strengthen the hold of the middle class on the same productive assets that enriched the Argentine aristocracy. Another important factor in the successful of the Dominions is that it was the same people on either side of the bargaining process. The leaders of settler societies were themselves part of the international British economic and political community. In contrast, the Argentine elites were excluded from British decision making, and persistently failed to learn from their mistakes.

I can give you the whole essay if you want.

No, but it's pretty damn close. In a poor country where there's not much cheap product choice (let alone state-subsidised bread for poor people), what's the difference between paying in food and paying in enough money to buy food to survive for another week?

It's really not. One system is the legal alienation of an individual rights as a person and agent (except, perversely, in criminal cases) and the investment of property rights in another over the alienated individual. The other is just paying someone badly.

How can you possibly say that a company that owned slave-labour sugar plantations in the West Indies two hundred years ago isn't built on old slave money?


What I meant to say is that 200 year old companies are very rare, and are very different to how they were. I can't think of one, except maybe De Biers, which would operate in the same way.

The fact that money can be made means nothing, it's the way it's made that's the problem.


But the fact that money can be made by Africans means that it's made in a very different way to how it was.

No, it's a product of old imperialism, and a perpetuator of current class class divisions.

Race as a concept developed parallel to old imperialism, and was used post hoc and ad hoc to justify it. Whether it perpetuates class relations, I dunno. Probably in some ways, but I think there are multiple feedback mechanisms in play.


You think history is one stage after another where everything changes every time the background does? It's not, it's all one thing and it's made up of lots and lots of interconnected events that influence each other. The slavery of the Africans two hundred years ago created a powerful and wealthy elite, as you said, who then banked hugely off the backs of everyone else and got even more rich and powerful. Now the people who inherited their money and power run the world (not in the illuminati sense, obviously). The industrial revolution may have created much more opportunity for profit, but who knows what the world would look like now without African slavery, but with industrialisation? There's no point in speculating, all we have is what happened and it's blindingly obvious how connected everything is.

The slavery of Africans was not particularly important to the long term historic trajectories of western economies. It's pretty unlikely slavery, in and of itself, contributed to industrialisation, and this more than anything contributed to the formation of colonial empires and western supremacy. Rich slave owners were usually hostile to industrialisation, or were even subordinated to the interests of the capitalists, because it corroded their ability to make money.
i don't know where you're going with teh second half, but if you're implying Africa was moving towards an industrial revolution before the Europeans intervened with trans-Atlantic slavery, you're really wrong.

[totah]

It's a huge stretch to say 'Americans eating Argentine beef' is a colonial relationship. It's entirely inaccurate to say trade is colonialism, since trade predates colonial systems of any kind.

But it's not simply trade. It's trade based in legislation that was drafted by the richer powerful nation (with the supervision of its capitalist elite) and accepted by corrupt politicians in the poorer nation so that capitalists can get cheap cheap labour and cheap cheap produce and sell it for the price they've been selling it where production costs were higher and the population richer. What happens is that the neo-colonised workers get paid buggerall for shoes that will be sold at a hundred times the production price (literally) in a country whose economy is already huge, while the workers' own measly earnings stay circulating within their tiny starving community, hardly a boost to their own economy. However, if the same company was selling shoes into the neo-colonised economy at a more affordable price then that economy would surely get a bigger boost than it does with the current arrangement.

Through its dominant position in world trade and finance, Britain (and America) enmeshed the economies of the New World and Australasia into a network of mutually dependent states. Although this strategy yielded massive returns, it was acutely hostile to the diversification of the economic base, with profound potential negative implications for long-term sustainable growth. The division of labour between industrial and primary producers ensured that independent capital accumulation for manufacturing purposes in the periphery was unprofitable and unattractive to both British and local investment. Instead, these societies acquired a capital infrastructure designed to maximise the profits of the agrarian or mining sectors, and the few local manufacturing operations that did exist were dominated by foreign owners. Parallel to this development was the rise of powerful, self-governing states that could affect domestic outcomes to a significant extent. Political institutions based on metropolitan designs were adopted, generating profoundly different regimes to those that emerged under colonial rule in the tropics. All of these developments facilitated the growth of settler capitalism, a mode of production that responded directly to the growing gap in agricultural output and mouths to feed in Europe. These countries became rich, it is argued, not in spite of dependency but because of it. Under the auspices of a 'free trade regime compatible with a high degree of political autonomy', the neo-Europes of the southern hemisphere participated in the world economy and gained substantial material rewards in return. Whether class relations provided a suitable environment to take the shift to industrialisation proved decisive in which countries would transform from semi- periphery agrarian societies into highly capitalised market economies that were partners in world trade to the northern metropolises.

...

This yields two important results: 1) dependency on the British metropolis was a major contributor to development in the Dominions and 2) the closer the links between the British and colonial state, the more likely political and economic conditions suitable for sustained dependent development were to emerge. The consequence of these conclusions are that Britishness, defined as formal inclusion with the imperial system, the imposition of Crown authority and the replication of British political institutions and norms, was an important determinant in the success of dependent development. Possible reasons for this association are that the British political institutions are more conducive to economic growth generally than the hacienda system, or that the Dominions benefited from imperial paternalism from which Argentina and other Latin American countries were excluded. However, these are merely speculative and more research must be conducted before any inferences can be drawn with some degree of certainty. What is significant is that this places Denoon's argument in the school of fragment theory settler historiography. It is the reproduction and indeed extension of capitalist productive relations in the Dominions that shape the outcome of development despite dependence. New modes of production weren't established on the frontier, but rather old ones imported and perfected. Although the franchise did begin to expand in Argentina from the 1870s onwards, gerrymandering, presidential intervention and tests on literacy prevented the full impact of democratic self- rule on the Argentine political economy. Crucially, Argentina's middle class remained attached to the same economic base as the old oligarchs. There was therefore no incentive to industrialise, rather just to strengthen the hold of the middle class on the same productive assets that enriched the Argentine aristocracy. Another important factor in the successful of the Dominions is that it was the same people on either side of the bargaining process. The leaders of settler societies were themselves part of the international British economic and political community. In contrast, the Argentine elites were excluded from British decision making, and persistently failed to learn from their mistakes.

I can give you the whole essay if you want.

I'd much prefer a summary. I think I understood some of the first half, but the rest just shot by.

It's really not. One system is the legal alienation of an individual rights as a person and agent (except, perversely, in criminal cases) and the investment of property rights in another over the alienated individual. The other is just paying someone badly.

But when you don't wrap it up with words and you see families living in hovels in shantytowns and going to the sweatshops or plantations every day and getting food over there, and then you compare it with exactly the same picture, but with the family members earning five cents per t-shirt or per kilo of coffee beans, and the quality of life is the same because the pay is calculated to be precisely enough to keep the workforce alive but to maximise profit in the short-term (ie. profit for the individuals in the board of directors who won't be there in a few years' time and couldn't give a toss what will happen to "the workforce"), there's not much difference at all.

What I meant to say is that 200 year old companies are very rare, and are very different to how they were. I can't think of one, except maybe De Biers, which would operate in the same way.

Oh I'm sure they've had to change with the liberalising times, but the point is that Tate&Lyle did own slave plantations, Motorola and IBM did profit from the 3rd Reich's military expansion (as did several American weapons companies), and that shows exactly how humane capitalism can be. It's profit-over-people and it always has been.

But the fact that money can be made by Africans means that it's made in a very different way to how it was.

But it's not made by Africans is it? It's made by a handful of dictators and their cronies, and by a whole lot of companies and investors that are owned and run by white people in white nations with white governments passing their legislation.

Race as a concept developed parallel to old imperialism, and was used post hoc and ad hoc to justify it. Whether it perpetuates class relations, I dunno. Probably in some ways, but I think there are multiple feedback mechanisms in play.

Of course it perpetuates class relations. Where the law and social welfare are concerned (in 1st and 2nd world countries like France and America), being dark-skinned is a whole other, lower, class than being white but of the same financial background. It's a class division based on race, which then creates more and more poor non-white people because they are given less opportunity by the social welfare system and by the legal system to advance. Which means many have to turn to crime, and the class division widens, the military-industrial complex profits (after all, who produces the guns, the weapons and the techniques the cops use?) and the rich white politicians are further entrenched into their comfy mansions and their Parliament.

The slavery of Africans was not particularly important to the long term historic trajectories of western economies. It's pretty unlikely slavery, in and of itself, contributed to industrialisation, and this more than anything contributed to the formation of colonial empires and western supremacy. Rich slave owners were usually hostile to industrialisation, or were even subordinated to the interests of the capitalists, because it corroded their ability to make money.

Well, what makes you say that? Slavery allowed the quick expansion into the Americas. If it had to be all white workers on the plantations and the farms do you think the settlement could have carried on so quickly? When the whole population would be too busy farming crops to survive the next winter, who would have the time to go to some out-of-the-way mountain and start another settlement? Lucky they had the black workforce to back them up with supplies and manpower once they had their farms set up.

I don't know where you're going with the second half, but if you're implying Africa was moving towards an industrial revolution before the Europeans intervened with trans-Atlantic slavery, you're really wrong.

No of course I wasn't. As I said, speculation is pointless and leads to nothing but more speculation.

[Smokey D]

But it's not simply trade. It's trade based in legislation that was drafted by the richer powerful nation (with the supervision of its capitalist elite) and accepted by corrupt politicians in the poorer nation so that capitalists can get cheap cheap labour and cheap cheap produce and sell it for the price they've been selling it where production costs were higher and the population richer. What happens is that the neo-colonised workers get paid buggerall for shoes that will be sold at a hundred times the production price (literally) in a country whose economy is already huge, while the workers' own measly earnings stay circulating within their tiny starving community, hardly a boost to their own economy. However, if the same company was selling shoes into the neo-colonised economy at a more affordable price then that economy would surely get a bigger boost than it does with the current arrangement.


But Argentina is greatly enriched in its trade with people who eat beef. I don't think Argentina is the best example of what you're trying to get at because its economy is, by South American standards, highly productive, high average wage and low income inequality. I don't think it's fair to say any trade relationship between two countries entails a neo colonial one, not least because it removes all agency from the allegedly exploited partner. The essay portion I posted above was supposed to illustrate how countries can (and were) made rich by participating in trade with other nations, despite the dependency this relationship entailed.

But when you don't wrap it up with words and you see families living in hovels in shantytowns and going to the sweatshops or plantations every day and getting food over there, and then you compare it with exactly the same picture, but with the family members earning five cents per t-shirt or per kilo of coffee beans, and the quality of life is the same because the pay is calculated to be precisely enough to keep the workforce alive but to maximise profit in the short-term (ie. profit for the individuals in the board of directors who won't be there in a few years' time and couldn't give a toss what will happen to "the workforce"), there's not much difference at all.


The conditions of workers in places with sweatshop labour are horrific, but it isn't slavery. They are capable of improving their lot (or at least are not subject to legal obstruction from doing so). And places where capital has been allowed to develop freely have demonstrated an increase in standard of living across the board. The problems caused by so-called neo-colonialism are usually the fault of dictatorship or misdirected investment. This is not to say that the West has not had a role in perpetuating that dictatorship or that they aren't culpable in other ways. What's important is that capitalism, in itself, isn't nearly as dangerous as you're making it out to be.

Oh I'm sure they've had to change with the liberalising times, but the point is that Tate&Lyle did own slave plantations, Motorola and IBM did profit from the 3rd Reich's military expansion (as did several American weapons companies), and that shows exactly how humane capitalism can be. It's profit-over-people and it always has been.


Yeah, so?

But it's not made by Africans is it? It's made by a handful of dictators and their cronies, and by a whole lot of companies and investors that are owned and run by white people in white nations with white governments passing their legislation.


It's made by some Africans.

I'm not quite sure what you're advocating? Do you want western companies to withdraw themselves from third world nations, despite the massive economic hardship that would entail for everyone?


Of course it perpetuates class relations. Where the law and social welfare are concerned (in 1st and 2nd world countries like France and America), being dark-skinned is a whole other, lower, class than being white but of the same financial background. It's a class division based on race, which then creates more and more poor non-white people because they are given less opportunity by the social welfare system and by the legal system to advance. Which means many have to turn to crime, and the class division widens, the military-industrial complex profits (after all, who produces the guns, the weapons and the techniques the cops use?) and the rich white politicians are further entrenched into their comfy mansions and their Parliament.

If it's a class division, then that's where the real problem lies. Your argument is simply out of step with the increasing inclusiveness of most western states towards minorities.

Well, what makes you say that? Slavery allowed the quick expansion into the Americas. If it had to be all white workers on the plantations and the farms do you think the settlement could have carried on so quickly? When the whole population would be too busy farming crops to survive the next winter, who would have the time to go to some out-of-the-way mountain and start another settlement? Lucky they had the black workforce to back them up with supplies and manpower once they had their farms set up.


White farming predominated in the areas which eventually became the most powerful and economically sophisticated. Slavery allowed for relatively easy gains for plantation holders in South America and the Southern states, but it was outstripped by the free states. That's why the Confederacy lost the war and why South America has languished. What you're arguing just shows that your knowledge of how things actually went down is really rudimentary.

Something like 'there were slaves in America. America is rich. therefore slaves made America rich'.

No of course I wasn't. As I said, speculation is pointless and leads to nothing but more speculation.

Speculation is pointless, but I can tell you that wasn't going to happen for several centuries.

[Mr. Ron]

would you say that since people have roles in America, like lets say paying taxes or what have you, then they could be prideful for their nation since they are contributing to it?

I don't necessarily agree with this, I'm just curious.

[Reaganista]

any member of any culture has every right to be proud of it

in as far as anyone has a right to be proud of anything